Roundup Gave Us Cancer

More than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide made them ill — and Monsanto did little to warn the public, despite knowing cancer risks existed.1

In 2015, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, was determined to be a “probable carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than taking immediate steps to protect Americans from this probable cancer-causing agent, decided to reassess its position on the chemical and, after doing so, released a paper in October 2015 stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.2

Monsanto protests

In April 2016, the EPA posted the report online, briefly, before pulling it and claiming it was not yet final and posted by mistake. The paper was signed by Jess Rowland (among other EPA officials), who at the time was the EPA’s deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC).

EPA Official Helped Stop a U.S. Investigation Into Glyphosate

Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto’s behalf.

In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”3 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which did not end up occurring. Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”4 And it gets even worse.

According to The New York Times:5

“Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication.”

The court records also show that in making the decision that glyphosate does not cause cancer, the EPA used two studies that had been ghostwritten by Monsanto’s toxicology manager but were published using names of academic researchers.6 Timothy Litzenburg’s law firm represents more than 500 people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who are suing Monsanto. He told CNN he expects the number of lawsuits to keep rising:7

“It would not surprise me in the least if there are 2,000 to 3,000 cases by the end of the year … This is the most-used herbicide in the world … from the largest farm operations to backyard gardens. It’s ubiquitous.”

Thirty-Year Glyphosate Cancer Cover-Up Revealed

Monsanto has used the EPA’s supposedly-not-final report in court hearings to suggest glyphosate is safe, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked for documents detailing Monsanto’s interactions with Rowland to be released. In March 2017, a judge unsealed the documents, which revealed disturbing information.

According to Sustainable Pulse, Monsanto was able to persuade the EPA to change the classification of glyphosate from a Class C Carcinogen (suggestive carcinogenic potential) to Class E, which means there is evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans.8 The change occurred while Monsanto was creating Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The news outlet also uncovered 1991 EPA documents detailing a Monsanto-funded study that found it may cause cancer. They reported, “[The study] was ‘reviewed’ again until it mysteriously showed no carcinogenic potential.”

What’s more, the late Dr. George Levinskas, Monsanto’s former director of environmental assessment and toxicology, was reported involved in covering up the cancer risks of both PCBs in the ‘70s and, later, glyphosate in the ‘80s:9

“He wrote an internal company letter in 1985 stating the following: ‘Senior management at the EPA is reviewing a proposal to classify glyphosate as a class C ‘possible human carcinogen’ because of kidney adenomas in male mice. Dr. Marvin Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to the EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate.’”

California Labels Glyphosate as a Chemical Known to Cause Cancer

Meanwhile, while the federal EPA is allowing glyphosate usage to continue unchecked, California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced in 2015 that they intended to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

Monsanto then filed formal comments with OEHHA saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn. When they didn’t give in, Monsanto took it a step further and filed a lawsuit against OEHHA in January 2016 to stop the glyphosate/cancer classification. OEHHA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and a Fresno, California superior court judge ruled on their behalf in February 2017.

This means new labels will be appearing in California that include a cancer warning on Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed killers, including Ortho Groundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II and others.

Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity and a former cancer researcher, told the Press Banner:

“When it comes to Roundup, California has become a national leader in flagging the very real danger posed by this vastly over-used pesticide … The state based its decision on the findings of the world’s most reliable, transparent and science-based assessment of glyphosate.”10

Scotts Pushes Cancer Chemical

Many people believe Scotts Miracle-Gro is owned by Monsanto. This isn’t true, but the two companies do have a close link. Scotts is the exclusive marketer of Roundup and generates about $154 million in total sales from the herbicide.11 With Monsanto’s reputation quickly tanking, however, The Motley Fool pointed out, “it’s clear the Scotts Miracle-Gro name is getting besmirched by its association, and that … is tough to put a price tag on.”

While Monsanto brought in more than $3.5 billion from herbicide (primarily Roundup) sales in 2016, this pales in comparison to the $10 billion generated by Monsanto’s seed and genomics sector. Monsanto profits not only off the sales of Roundup but also, and more so, off the sale of the GE Roundup Ready seeds to go with it.

Scotts, on the other hand, enjoys no such double-dipping, but still paid Monsanto $300 million in 2015 to gain the rights to sell Roundup in China, Latin America and other markets.12

Another blow to their joint reputation occurred in 2003 when, with the permission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monsanto and Scotts performed a field trial of experimental GE grass which, like Roundup Ready crops, is impervious to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

The grass, a type of GE creeping bentgrass that was being designed specifically for use on golf courses, turned out to be extremely hardy, so much so that the test plot was shut down and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns that the grass could negatively affect endangered species in Oregon. But by then it was too late.

The grass had already spread beyond the test plot, including into a nearby national grassland preserve. More than a decade later, the invasive GE grass is still a problem in Oregon. This certainly didn’t help Scotts’ reputation, and some, including The Motley Fool, have suggested the company should simply stop selling Roundup:13

“It’s hard to quantify exactly how many sales Scotts Miracle-Gro foregoes because of this partnership, and it is possible Roundup sales actually outweigh those lost, but there is still harm to the brand reputation, which seems like a preventable forced error. It might be one the lawn-care specialist would be better off not committing simply by not having Roundup in its portfolio.”

Roundup May Be Killing Butterflies

Numbers of Monarch butterflies have decreased by 90 percent since 1996. As usage of glyphosate has skyrocketed, milkweed, which is the only plant on which the adult monarch will lay its eggs, has plummeted.

In 2013, it was estimated that just 1 percent of the common milkweed present in 1999 remained in corn and soybean fields and, tragically, while milkweed is not harmed by many herbicides, it is easily killed by glyphosate.14 A 2017 study published in the journal Ecography further noted a strong connection between large-scale Monarch deaths and glyphosate application.15,16

Sarah Saunders, Michigan State University integrative biologist and lead study author said in a press release:17

“Our study provides the first empirical evidence of a negative association between glyphosate application and local abundance of adult monarch butterflies during 1994 [to] 2003, the initial phase of large-scale herbicide adoption in the Midwest.”

2,4-D Is Another Toxic Agricultural Chemical

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate battle fields in the jungles of Vietnam, with horrendous consequences to the health of those exposed.

It’s also a common ingredient in “weed and feed” lawn care products, because it kills weeds without harming grass, fruits or vegetables, the latter of which makes it very popular among farmers. It’s also very popular among backyard gardeners, however, and this population may spread it on even heavier than farmers do on their crops. As reported by KCET news:18

“In several studies, 2,4-D was the most common herbicide found in suburban areas, and other studies have detected the herbicide in two-thirds of interior air samples taken from households. The herbicide breaks down in around a month in rich, moist soils but can linger indefinitely in other settings, for instance as a constituent of household dust.

“An Ohio study found 2,4-D in 98 percent of the homes tested, though just one of the homeowners reported having used the herbicide in recent weeks.”

This is concerning because, like glyphosate, IARC ruled 2,4-D a possible human carcinogen in 2015, and there is concern it may increase the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft-tissue cancer known as sarcoma. Further, it’s an endocrine-disrupting chemical that may negatively affect thyroid hormones and brain development.

It may also be associated with birth defects, reduced fertility and neurological problems. Despite this, in 2014 the EPA approved the use of Enlist Duo — an herbicide manufactured by Dow Chemical that combines 2,4-D with Roundup, to be used on corn and soybeans genetically engineered to tolerate both 2,4-D and glyphosate.

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that by 2020, the use of 2,4-D on America’s farms could rise between 100 percent and 600 percent now that it has been approved as part of Enlist Duo,” the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stated, continuing:19

“According to [NRDC staff scientist Kristi] Pullen, ‘When you combine increased use with the potential for increased developmental, cancer, and other health impacts, you could create a perfect storm of hazard and exposure coming together.’”

Test Your Personal Glyphosate Levels

If you’d like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination.

In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the case of glyphosate, it’s also wise to avoid crops like wheat and oats, which may be sprayed with glyphosate for drying purposes prior to harvest. As for the collusion between Monsanto and EPA, the lack of independence among regulators and promoters and distributors of health information has become of tremendous concern.

Due to a dramatic rise in scientific fraud and rampant conflict of interest, it’s more important than ever to be able to gain access to the full set of data on research studies and identify potential conflicts of interest, as well as seek opinions from experts you know and trust, before making or taking a health recommendation.

Biotech companies are gaining power by taking over the government

There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the toxic chemicals used along with them pose a serious threat to the environment and our health, yet government agencies turn a blind eye and refuse to act — and the reason is very clear: They are furthering the interests of the biotech giants.

It is well known that there is a revolving door between government agencies and biotech companies like Monsanto-now-Bayer. Consider the hypocrisy of the FDA. On paper, the U.S. may have the strictest food safety laws in the world governing new food additives, but this agency has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides and herbicides like Roundup to evade these laws.

In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is patently ridiculous. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.

The influence of the biotech giants is not limited to the U.S. In a June 2017 article, GMWatch revealed that 26 of the 34 members of the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina (CONABIA) are either employed by chemical technology companies or have major conflicts of interest.

You may be aware that Argentina is one of the countries where single-crop fields of GE cotton, corn and soy dominate the countryside. Argentina is also a country facing severe environmental destruction.

Argentines are plagued with health issues, including degenerative diseases and physical deformities. It would appear that the rapid expansion of GE crops and the subsequent decline in national health indicators are intrinsically linked.

In a further effort to hoodwink the public, Monsanto/Bayer and their cohorts have been caught zealously spoon-feeding scientists, academics and journalists with questionable studies that depict them in a positive light.

By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity and present it as independent and authoritative. It’s a shameful practice that is far more common than anyone would like to think. One notorious example of this is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.

Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted GE foods during this campaign. In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

After it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired him, but also removed all of his work from its site.

Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health were both Monsanto-funded before Bayer bought Monsanto. Whether that funding continues under Bayer is left to be seen, but other “trusted” sources were also caught taking Monsanto money.

For example, WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information, was exposed acting as a lackey for Monsanto by using its influence to promote corporate-backed health strategies and products, displaying advertisements and advertorials on Big Biotechs’ behalf, furthering the biotech industry’s agenda — all for the sake of profit.

But even with underhanded tactics to peddle their toxic products, biotechs are now unable to hide the truth: Genetic engineering will in no way, shape or form make the world a better place.

It will not solve world hunger. It will not increase farmers’ livelihoods. And it most certainly will not do any good for your health — and may in fact prove to be detrimental.

There’s no better time to act than NOW — Here’s what you can do

So now the question is: Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Big Biotech, Monsanto/Bayer and their industry shills and profit-hungry lackeys have painstakingly crafted? It is largely up to all of us, as consumers, to loosen and break their tight hold on our food supply. The good news is that the tide has turned.

As consumers worldwide become increasingly aware of the problems linked to GE crops and the toxic chemicals, herbicides and pesticides used on them, more and more people are proactively refusing to eat these foods.

There’s also strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture.

You can also join a community supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.

In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country:

Monsanto, Bayer and their allies want you to think that they control everything, but they do not. It’s you, the masses, who hold the power in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards.

Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

From the author: The existing medical establishment is responsible for killing and permanently injuring millions of Americans, but the surging numbers of visitors to Mercola.com since I began the site in 1997 – we are now routinely among the top 10 health sites on the Internet – convinces me that you, too, are fed up with their deception. You want practical health solutions without the hype, and that’s what I offer.